The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content

Consultation response

Remote customer interaction: Consultation Response

This response document sets out our conclusions and actions in relation to the consultation around remote customer interaction.

Respondents’ views on identifying customers at risk of harm

There was a wide range of views relating to assessments to identify unaffordable gambling. There were significant concerns about consumer privacy and freedom and calls for any such measures to therefore be targeted at the customers who are most at risk, and not general or what was often described as ‘leisure consumers’. Some stakeholders were strongly in favour of assessments to identify unaffordable gambling and called for the assessments to apply to all customers. We will explore these issues further in a future consultation which will consider requirements that will tackle three key and significant risks - unaffordable binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time, and identifying customers who are in a particularly financially vulnerable situation.

In relation to customers who may be in a vulnerable situation:

  • a high proportion of respondents from the short survey agreed that operators should take action when aware of vulnerability. This was generally consistent across all respondent types - consumers, those employed in a gambling business, charities, and academics. Those who disagreed did so primarily for reasons relating to consumer privacy and freedom
  • in the main consultation, views were more split on this topic. Overall, gamblers were split between agreeing and disagreeing with this proposal. Charities, affected others and academics generally agreed but were concerned that all consumers should be considered vulnerable to harm, not just one particular demographic. People who worked in a gambling business generally agreed with this proposal.

In relation to time, respondents to the consultation mainly disagreed that the Commission should set specific time indicators for different products, or that there should be a separate requirement for time as an indicator.

Previous section
Consultation questions on identifying customers at risk of harm
Next section
Our position on identifying customers at risk of harm
Is this page useful?
Back to top